Banner Advertiser

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

[ALOCHONA] New BNP stance on war crimes trial unfair, unacceptable



New BNP stance on war crimes trial unfair, unacceptable

THE opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party has visibly changed its position as regards the trial of the Bengali collaborators of the Pakistan army that committed war crimes against the people of Bangladesh in 1971. Until Tuesday, the party's spokespersons maintained that the BNP does not have any problem with the war crimes being investigated and the criminals tried, while warning the government that it must not victimise leaders and activists of the opposition camp, in the name of trying war crimes. Fair enough. But on Tuesday, the BNP chairperson, Khaleda Zia, told a gathering of a section of the freedom fighters, according to a report front-paged by New Age on Wednesday, that 'attempts are being made to push the nation to a confrontation in the name of war crimes trial four decades after independence.' Referring to the clemency given to the guilty of the Pakistani army by the post-independence government of the Awami League, and subsequent 'general amnesty' to the collaborators, Khaleda also said 'such double standard' of the ruling party 'must be resisted'. The BNP chairperson has taken a clear position against the 'war crimes trial' in the name of consolidating 'national unity'. We believe the new BNP stance on the issue of war crimes trial is unfair—and thus unacceptable—as it amounts to injustice towards those who were killed, tortured, raped and burnt by the occupation forces of Pakistan and their local collaborators during the country's liberation war.
   
It is historically true that the post-independence government of the Awami League officially 'forgave' the guilty officers of the Pakistan army, saying that 'the Bengalis know how to forgive.' It is also true that the Awami League government of the day granted 'general amnesty' to the local collaborators, of course, barring those involved in heinous crimes like killing, rape and arson. We believe such steps of the post-independence Awami League government were unjust, as those amounted to injustice towards those who sacrificed lives, underwent brutal torture, humiliation and enormous ordeal for the sake of national liberation. We believe the government of the day did not have the moral right to 'forgive' the perpetrators of war crimes.
  
 However, the inability, or opportunistic reluctance, of the post-independence government to try the perpetrators of war crimes and their collaborators does not mean that the crimes cannot be investigated and the criminals punished now, forty years after the war of independence. There are instances in history that war crimes have been tried several years after the crimes were committed. It is better late than never, especially when it comes to justice. We have no reason to believe the mere trial of war crimes would divide the nation anew – the nation is already divided on political lines – as the number of 'collaborators' in 1971 was very few as against the entire population of the day who stood for the country's liberation from the occupation forces.
   
We, therefore, believe the government should go ahead with the trial of the collaborators of war crimes, and demand that the surviving officers of the Pakistan army who perpetrated war crimes in Bangladesh should be handed over to the war crimes tribunal for trial. Notably, the Pakistani authorities, while signing the tripartite agreement with Bangladesh and India for the repatriation of the guilty officers to Pakistan in 1973, promised to try their crimes in their homeland. But the Pakistani authorities failed to keep the commitment. It is time that Bangladesh demanded, at the least, that the guilty officers be tried in Pakistan in accordance with the commitment that its government had made four decades ago.
   
Meanwhile, the country's democratically oriented citizens committed to justice require to keep an eye on the whole process of the trial in Dhaka, so that the trial is fair and transparent, and that the government of Awami League cannot victimise its political rivals in the name of trying the perpetrators/collaborators of war crime, nor can it prolong the trial unduly for politically using the issue for parochial partisan interests for the years to come, as it has done before.
 


__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Re: Bangladesh appears to become hostage by gamblers



 
 
On 10/6/10, Isha Khan <bdmailer@gmail.com> wrote:
Bangladesh appears to become hostage by gamblers

Justice Muhammad Habibur Rahman

Bangladesh appears to become a hostage by gamblers, Justice Muhammad Habibur Rahman said citing lack of good governance in the most sectors of the country.

"It appears that the country is in the grip of the gamblers…people today are seriously worried over the irregularities in the process of admission, recruitment, tenders and partisanship," he said while launching a report titled "The State of Governance in Bangladesh".

Habibur Rahman, former chief adviser to the caretaker government, posed the question " how an administration based on talent could be established when one has to count Tk 3 lakh to get a class-IV job?"  Referring to the economic successes of China, he said, "I think it is the administration based on talent -- not the political cadres -- behind the rise of China."

The Institute of Good Governance (IGS) of BRAC University launched the report at the auditorium of Journalism Training and Research Initiative (Jatri) in the capital. The report included policy research on four subjects -- energy crisis, food security, digital Bangladesh and international labour migration.

Addressing the programme as the chief guest, Habibur Rahman, also a former chief justice, said it has become difficult for the bureaucracy to rule the officials who are in favour of the pro-ruling party since the independence. "As a result, system loss in the public service sector went up continuously," he said.

BRAC University Pro Vice Chancellor Md Golam Samdani Fakir, IGS Director Manzoor Hasan and Chief of Programme Christina Mary Rozario and Lecturer Irum Ali also spoke.
 



__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Daily Star - Remembering Azam Khan



Thursday, October 7, 2010

Point Counterpoint

Remembering Azam Khan

 

LT. General Azam Khan was above all else a soldier, pure and simple. His only direct involvement or interaction with the people of Bangladesh was for a brief period, from April 1960 to May 1962, when he held the office of governor of the then province of East Pakistan.

 

Azam Khan had represented a martial law regime, far from home and to a people who were culturally and linguistically removed from his own. He was thus an improbable candidate to make an impression in the minds and hearts of the Bangladeshi people. And yet, many of those old enough to remember the early years of the decade of the 1960's would agree that he was different.

 

There was more than one account as to the reasons for his appointment. The best-known version was that the then President Ayub Khan had wanted the most dynamic and effective person for the job, and Azam Khan had the well-deserved reputation of getting things done. Earlier as minister for refugees and rehabilitation, he had pushed through in six months the housing development of Korangi, to resettle thousands of refugees who were living in makeshift slum accommodations in Karachi.

 

Reportedly Ayub Khan had told Azam Khan that "if you don't go to East Pakistan, I will have to go myself." Another version was simpler; Ayub Khan wanted to put some distance between Azam Khan and the levers of power.

 

Azam Khan made his presence felt soon after he assumed office. At that time, whenever the governor travelled by car within the city, the roads on his route would be cleared of traffic a few minutes ahead of time by an advance security vehicle. This was both for reasons of security and convenience. Azam Khan dispensed with this practice, and the gubernatorial limousine, with a security car in attendance, would be seen with other vehicles on the streets of the city.

 

Traffic congestion, of course, was not a problem then. He toured frequently and extensively. There was the occasional newspaper report -- and also picture -- of his sharing the frugal meal of a fisherman or farmer on such tours. Azam Khan would describe fishermen and farmers as his "jheley bhai" and "chashi bhai." There may be a similarity to what is known as "kissing babies" prior to elections in a Western country.

 

On the other hand, a senior member of a military regime firmly entrenched in power, would not have the time, inclination or need to indulge in a public relations exercise, not in the bad old days when the Cold War was at its apogee.

 

As governor, Azam Khan was also the chancellor of the few universities that existed at the time, and took keen interest in the student community. One evening, he turned up at SM Hall without notice. A thoroughly flustered security guard, Naju Mian -- who was almost integral to the ambience of the Hall of that time -- could not locate the Provost, Dr. Mazharul Haque, and so rushed to inform the general secretary of the Hall Union, who welcomed the distinguished visitor.

 

Azam Khan was his usual effusive and affable self. He mixed freely with the students present and was shown around the Hall. He then declared that he would dine with the students. There was no time to add anything special to the menu; the governor, however, relished the meal.

 

He was less satisfied, though, with the state of the crockery, which admittedly was much used. On his inquiry, the general secretary informed him that about 300 students were living in the Hall. A week or so later a set of 300 dining plates, with matching quarter plates, and 300 drinking glasses were delivered to the Hall, courtesy of the chancellor.

 

In May of 1961 a devastating cyclone, with a top speed of over 100 miles per hour, struck the port city of Chittagong and surrounding coastal areas. Over 12,000 people perished; many more were severely affected. There was widespread damage to property and infrastructure. Azam Khan was indefatigable in organising and supervising relief operations, and in touring the affected areas extensively to assess first hand the extent of damage. He seemed almost to thrive on the punishing schedule that he set for himself.

 

As an administrator, Azam Khan had vision and drive. At that time some of the government offices functioned from tin sheds in the Secretariat. As the administration and the bureaucracy expanded, there was pressure on the available accommodation. A proposal was submitted to the governor for another tin shed to be built in the Secretariat premises to provide much needed additional space.

 

Azam Khan, however, had more ambitious ideas. He preferred something that would cater for future needs as well; a multi-storied building, sturdy enough for a helipad on the roof. Construction of the first nine-story building of Secretariat began not long afterwards.

 

Azam Khan was removed from office in May 1962. An exchange of letters at that time between him and Ayub Khan brought out a stark perception gap. Ayub Khan was emphatic that the governor was essentially the agent of the centre, and, in his opinion, Azam Khan no longer possessed the unswerving commitment to the centre's policies that was expected of the governor. In other words, he had "gone native." Azam Khan's focus, on the other hand, was simply on doing what he believed to be the right thing, doing what needed to be done.

 

In 1975, Bangladesh and Pakistan decided to exchange resident ambassadors, and Azam Khan was offered the ambassadorship to Bangladesh. He declined the appointment. He could not, he felt, represent either Pakistan in Bangladesh, or Bangladesh in Pakistan. He maintained contacts, of course, with successive ambassadors/high commissioners of Bangladesh to Pakistan (Between 1972 and 1989, Pakistan was not a member of the Commonwealth).

 

In 1986, not long after the inception of Saarc, Pakistan hosted a meeting of Saarc finance ministers in Islamabad. Azam Khan travelled by car from Lahore to attend a small dinner party for the delegation from Bangladesh at the residence of the then ambassador.

 

He was in an expansive and nostalgic mood. He recalled the 1953 anti-Ahmadiyya riots in Lahore and other areas of the Punjab. It had begun as a religio-political agitation. A motley group of extremists had demanded that the Ahmadiyyas be declared a religious minority, and that all Ahmadiyyas holding important positions in the government be removed from office. The main target was Foreign Minister Chaudhury Zafarullah Khan. There was the threat of "direct action" if the demands were not met.

 

Prime Minister Khwaja Nazimuddin, a devout Muslim and a thorough gentleman, could not accede to the demands. He was, however, less than firm and decisive in addressing the admittedly difficult situation. In the month of March, when civil administration broke down in the face of widespread riots, killings, looting and arson in Lahore and other cities of the Punjab, martial law was proclaimed in the affected areas. Azam Khan, as the GOC of the 10th Division at Lahore, administered the martial law and quelled the riots with utmost rigour and efficacy.

 

A summary military court sentenced to death Maulana Maudoodi and Maulana Abdus Sattar Khan Niazi for their role in fomenting the disturbances. The sentences were subsequently commuted to life imprisonment, and eventually both were released. This was Pakistan's first experience of martial law; it would last for over two months.

Azam Khan believed, as did many others, that the riots were a cynical ploy by a political cabal, which included Punjab Chief Minister Mian Daultana, to undermine and discredit Prime Minister Khwaja Nazimuddin. Both Nazimuddin and Daultana would be ousted from office in the aftermath -- and largely as a consequence -- of the riots.

 

In the month of July, a two-member Court of Inquiry was constituted to inquire into the "Punjab Disturbances of 1953." The Court comprised the chief justice of the Lahore High Court, M. Munir, as president and Justice M.R. Kayani, Puisne Judge, as member. The close to 400-page report of the Court exhaustively covered the issues, facts and train of events in respect of what happened. Their lordships concluded their report almost on a note of despair: "But if democracy means the subordination of law and order to political ends, then Allah knoweth best and we end the report."

 

Azam Khan spoke in passing about Ayub Khan. Their association went back many years, to the time when both were young officers of the British Indian army. They did not keep in touch after Azam Khan's recall from Dhaka in 1962. He did attend the obsequies though after Ayub Khan passed away in 1974, and there he met Begum Ayub Khan after a gap of many years.

 

She lamented -- with just a touch of reproach -- that Ayub Khan's close comrades and associates had deserted him. Surrounded by sycophants and deprived of honest counsel, his judgment had faltered in his last years of power. Azam Khan replied gently that he had never parted company with Ayub Khan; it had been the other way around.

 

In the late 1980's the then ambassador of Bangladesh received a cryptic message from Azam Khan. Could the ambassador drop in for a cup of tea the next time he was in Lahore; there was an important matter that the general wanted to discuss with him. The ambassador was happy to oblige and on his next trip to Lahore went to Azam Khan's residence.

 

Begum Azam Khan welcomed him warmly and asked if he knew what it was that the general wished to discuss with him. The ambassador did not know. She then proceeded to enlighten him. Azam Khan had drawn up papers making a gift of his considerable landed property to the people of Bangladesh, and planned to hand over the documents to the ambassador. Begum Azam Khan felt that the ambassador should know something; the estates were the main source of income for the family.

 

The ambassador was an astute and accomplished diplomat, one of the best of Bangladesh. He was placed in a quandary. He could not accept the outrageously generous gift, not in the light of what Begum Azam Khan had told him. On the other hand, how could he decline gracefully without causing hurt? He had only minutes to marshal his thoughts before his host joined him in the lounge.

 

Azam Khan greeted his guest with his usual warmth. Over the years, he said, he had received much love and affection from the people of Bangladesh. It was not something that could be repaid. However, he wished very much to show his appreciation, and had thus decided to gift his lands to the people of Bangladesh. The ambassador thanked him.

 

Azam Khan's love for the people of Bangladesh was known to all, and did not need to be reaffirmed. As a student of Dhaka University in 1961, the ambassador had once attended a talk by the then chancellor at a student function. In his talk, Azam Khan had stressed the importance of self-reliance for a nation and people in achieving something worthwhile. This message had stayed with him. There were many who subscribed to such an approach. Would accepting the general's very generous gift be consistent with this teaching? Azam Khan, of course, got the drift of what the ambassador was trying to convey. He never raised the matter again.

 

There was a soft, almost sentimental, side to Azam Khan which seldom came to the fore. Sometime in the early 1990's he showed the high commissioner of Bangladesh an address of welcome that had been read out in his honour -- and subsequently bound and presented to him -- during a visit to a university, as governor, decades earlier.

The address was in Bangla, and Azam Khan wondered if the high commissioner could translate it for him. By the time the high commissioner had finished his verbal translation, Azam Khan's eyes were moist. He was moved to tears as much by the words of the address, as by the memories they evoked.

Azam Khan passed away not long afterwards. He was, as he himself liked to say, a simple and humble man. There cannot be too many such simple and humble men in any country of the world. May the earth rest lightly upon him.

Megasthenes is a columnist of The Daily Star.


__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] The Politics of Disarray




"Where, after all, do universal human rights begin?
In small places, close to home--so close and so small
that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. Yet
they are the world of the individual person;the
neighbourhood he lives in;the school or college he attends;
the factory, farm, or office where every man,woman,and
child seeks equal justice, equal, opportunity,equal dignity
without discrimination. Unless these rights have meaning
there, they have little meaning anywhere"

Eleanor Roosevelt, 1958

don't you think my friends...who are writing so.. intensely re. Bangladesh issues....we had to leave our own country.. for our basic rights and  our leaders are having all 'glorious' privileges?

Rumana  C.  Ahsan



Re Politics of disarray


Because of his very polite and humble nature, Abed Khan, editor of Kalerkantha could not make the real point which has been bluntly and befittingly pointed out by one of our best known on line authors for wisdom and uprightness, Akbar Hossain. His advice to the leaders of Bangladesh for political Harikiri following Pakistani example is very timely when the country is sitting on the volcano of War criminals trial. The day long suffocation of the capital caused by AL on the occasion of the home coming of the Prime Minister, showed disrespect to the people and their feelings of freedom. AL can hold a Paltan Moidan rally to celebrate the progress of the nation under the leadership of our dear lreader Sheikh Hasina and take that opputunity to apologise to the nation for their acts on PM's home coming.

Belal Beg 



------------------------------------

NOTE: This is a moderated group, and not everything can be posted.  The moderators are NOT responsible, however, for whatever opinions are expressed.Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/uttorshuri/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/uttorshuri/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    uttorshuri-digest@yahoogroups.com
    uttorshuri-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    uttorshuri-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

Re: [ALOCHONA] Re: [ History Islam & Beyond . . .] Can we have a new UN please?



Hakka Hua - I am staggered at the range of your concerns. It now extends to UN as well and its eunuchness (hijra for us Bongos). WOW WOW.

 

I thought you were just concerned about your dear cousin sister Hashu Api and your Putul Khala Amma.

 

Robin

-----Original Message-----
From: Faruque Alamgir
Sent: Oct 6, 2010 7:50 AM
To: history_islam@yahoogroups.com, wideminds , alochona , "Dr. Abid Bahar" , dahuk , notun_bangladesh@yahoogroups.com, Sonar Bangladesh , serajurrahman@btinternet.com, farhadmazhar@hotmail.com, zoglul@hotmail.co.uk
Subject: [ALOCHONA] Re: [ History Islam & Beyond . . .] Can we have a new UN please?

 

Dear friends


As I am also a great critique of eunuch UN which acts just like onlooker at the massacre done by the power means the owners in guise of 5 UNSC members. 
It has lost it's chasity since the dawn of it's birth by putting it under the tutelage of the five big goons in guise of CHAMP HR/ DEMOCRACY(their version).

The present UN structure has created few Frankenstein and of them the most venomous on is the thorn of ME the illegal Jewish State. From the present scenario it appears that the Jews is the only nation who licence to kill and kill/bombs cluster on the kids,women  and bulldoze/put blockade to starve millions  and the UN shamelessly conniving by not raising finger at the killer beasts. 

To me we do not need to have fresh UN established.Just we need to abolish the UNSC and put all power to the General Assembly 
(UNGA ) wherein the issues should be decided on majority basis not by the owner as it had been down till date. By thus the UN will emerge as the power full democratic organ to safeguard the world from the blood haunting marauders.

Faruque Alamgir

On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 1:08 AM, <> wrote:
 

Arab news 
 AIJAZ ZAKA SYED | ARAB NEWS

Can we have a new UN please?

Is there no limit to international duplicity and hypocrisy?

Given the intensity of global outrage over the assault on the Gaza aid flotilla, some of us were beginning to hope that the world might finally confront Israel. We were obviously mistaken — once again. 

 

OK, poor Palestinians have long gotten used to getting swatted like flies and being at the receiving end forever. And Israel has always gotten away with murder. But those killed in cold blood in international waters were not some faceless "Palestinian terrorists," as Israel calls them, but international peace activists and aid workers. And mind you they were not running guns or drugs but rushing the critically needed aid like food, medicines and most mundane stuff such as books and toys for children and bricks and cement for the ravaged homes of Gaza.

This is why the least you expected from the so-called international community and its so-called institutions was some token action against Israel, or at least strong words against its shocking and brazen acts against the unarmed peace activists. The United Nations with its fine institutions and the movers and shakers who run the world body are yet to unequivocally condemn the Israeli outrage, let alone lift a finger against the regime. 

Helen Thomas, senior White House Press Corps member and the considered doyenne of international correspondents, gave a rare voice to America's sleeping conscience when she blasted Israeli attack on the humanitarian convoy saying, "our initial reaction to this flotilla massacre, deliberate massacre, an international crime, was pitiful."

 

Ms. Thomas who's facing the combined wrath of the Israeli lobby and fanatically pro-Israel US media for advising the Jews to "get the hell out of Palestine" has been taped angrily questioning the US policy on Israel: "What do you mean you regret when something should be so strongly condemned? And if any other nation in the world had done it, we would have been up in arms. What is this sacrosanct, iron-clad relationship, where a country that deliberately kills people?"

 

Ms. Thomas, who grilled 10 US presidents and survived, has been brought down by the lobby and has been forced to step down. So much for the much-celebrated Western freedom of speech! Meanwhile majority of US media networks, manipulated by the pro-Israel moneybags as always, are bending over backward to justify and "explain" the madness of Israeli massacre, spawning totally bizarre and ludicrous theories about the activists brandishing weapons and assaulting Israeli troops shouting "the Prophet's army is coming!"

 

IF the aid flotilla had arms on board, why it didn't use them to defend itself? More to the point, how come all those killed were shot point blank on the forehead and in the back? But how can you argue with folks who live in a different world of their own where ephemeral things like reason, common sense and facts cannot break in. 

What's new though? This is how Israel has always operated. It sets its own rules of the game and always gets the blessings of its defenders however indefensible be its actions. Only we expected better from Obama, because of his own sublime rhetoric and the incorrigible "audacity of hope". Clearly, the more things change for Israel and America, the more they remain the same.  So instead of going after Israel that is guilty of ultimate crime of murdering peacemakers and aid workers, not to mention the humanitarian catastrophe that has Gaza in its grip because of Israeli siege, the UN and world powers have inflicted another set of sanctions against Iran. There's talk of "shock and awe" all over again, vowing to eliminate the "threat of Iran's nuclear weapons" and "Islamic terrorism".   

 

Pray who's the real terrorist here? The one who hasn't attacked any neighbor, nor invaded a distant neutral country in the past few centuries or one who has just killed nine innocent people on a humanitarian mission? Who's the real threat to world peace? Iran's antiquated nuclear program, constantly monitored and "inspected" by the IAEA gray suits, or a state that has been hoarding nuclear weapons for half a century now and is guilty of wars against neighbors that have killed thousands of innocent people and driven millions from their homes? More ironically, all those ganging up against Iran brandishing this new stick of sanctions have enough nuclear weapons in their possession to blow up the planet many times over. 

 

CAN there be a better example of hypocrisy and duplicity? If this isn't double standard, what is? Let's face it. International institutions like the UN that were created ostensibly to build peace and avoid conflicts and wars have become playthings in the hands of big powers. They run the world as they please, using these international institutions. The UN, for which I have immense respect, has become a toothless tiger because the real power rests with the Big Five who rule and manipulate it with the help of their veto power. As any student of political science would tell you, this is precisely what happened with the League of Nations. With the world powers refusing to take it seriously and using it to push their own agendas, the league collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions and double standards in no time.

 

The collapse of the league helped and aggravated the World War II wiping out nearly half of Europe's population. When the UN was founded by the victors of the World War II in 1945, the failure of the league was supposed to have been in sight and right lessons were supposed to have been learned. But look at the crippling powerlessness of the UN today.  It has become the handmaiden of big powers despite the noble goals and objectives that were at the heart of its inception. 

 

I agree most UN agencies have been doing an exemplary job of providing aid and fighting poverty, disease, backwardness, climate change and other demons. However, the world body has woefully failed in its chief objective; its raison d' etre of protecting peace and preventing conflicts.

 

The UN has still failed to deliver 65 years after its formation because some at the table are more equal than others. Western colonial rule may have ended long ago but their writ still runs in and outside the UN. The institution that is described as the world's Parliament is sadly dictated by the old jungle law of the might is right. The number of times the US alone has used its veto power to block even perfunctory resolutions condemning Israeli crimes against Palestinian people runs into hundreds.  

 

If this has to change, the UN must change to reflect today's changed geopolitical realities.  Isn't it strange that the largest democratic body on the planet offers no real say to more than half of its population? The Security Council that controls the world body is restricted to the US, Russia, China, Britain and France.

 

The Middle East, the cradle of civilizations, home to three great faiths and the world's known energy resources, has no say in the UN's decision-making process. A country like India with a billion plus population is kept out in the cold. Ditto Africa where life on the planet is said to have begun. Representatives of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims are not welcome either. In fact, the entire Southern Hemisphere of the globe doesn't have a seat at the table.  When will this change? Why should the UN be the preserve of a select club? India has been knocking on the door for some time, hoping to get a permanent seat at the privileged table. But others must follow suit too, pushing for a complete restructuring of the world body. It's time to build a new UN and a new world order. A just and democratic world is not possible without justice and equality at the UN.

P Think Green
 




__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Fwd:Evangelist leads 'disinformation campaign' on Obama: Religion professor





What else they distort?

The "black guy" in America cannot catch a break!! He defied all odds and became the president of the US but could not stop media distortion of his OBVIOUS religious identity. Those who live in the US knows the controversy with his pastor and how people tried to score political points with few lose comments by Obama's pastor. If he was not a Christian, why he was attending church for so many years?

The "White America" cannot tolerate taking order from a mulatto .

And all those talk about free speech. Are they free speech or hate speech? Click here to see another group targeted.




 
  Aug 20, 2010

Evangelist leads 'disinformation campaign' on Obama: Religion professor

 
Rev. Franklin Graham, shown here at a NASCAR race, says Obama was 'born Muslim' and appeared to doubt Obama's Christianity. Religion professor Stephen Prothero says Graham is spreading 'disinformation' about Christianity and Islam, which Graham once described as
By Chuck Burton, AP
Rev. Franklin Graham is leading a "disinformation campaign" against President Obama by attacking Obama's Christian faith and distorting Islam's theology, says a leading religion professor.
 
After CNN's John King gave Graham a full news cycle to raise a lifted eyebrow at President Obama's Christian profession of faith, Stephen Prothero, religion professor at Boston University, came on King's show Friday night to undercut Graham and question why CNN would ask an evangelist known to slur Islam, to speculate on its theology.
 
According to a transcript released by CNN, Prothero, author of God is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World, told King, the finding in a recent survey that 18% of Americans believe Obama is Muslim ...
... is because we have people who are supposed to be responsible public leaders, like Franklin Graham, who are spreading what seems to me like a sort of disinformation campaign... What Franklin Graham should say: 'Barack Obama says he's a Christian, he's a Christian, end of story.'
Prothero also pointed out that Obama prayed with Franklin and his father, America's most famous living evangelist, Rev. Billy Graham, in May but Franklin still repeatedly used the "if" word to answer King's questions Thursday on whether Obama has accepted Christ.
Prothero said:
Franklin Graham doesn't seem to be interested in focusing on preaching the gospel of -- of Jesus. He wants to be spreading misinformation about the religion of Islam.
... Why are we listening to Franklin Graham?
 
 
Prothero, who also wrote a book on Americans' ignorance about their own faith traditions as well as those of others (Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know -- And Doesn't) told King,
.. it doesn't help the conversation we need to have as a public about Islam to be having people who are just basically spreading falsehoods about the tradition.
We should be listening to Muslims about their tradition. We should be listening to scholars about their tradition. But we shouldn't be listening to Evangelical preachers who are out to trash the Muslim religion in order to gain some political and perhaps religious advantage.
Prothero also pounced on Graham for cherry-picking quotes from the Quran that highlight violence. (In U.S. Protestant culture, picking quotes out of context from the Bible to prove a point is called "proof-texting."). Prothero highlighted
... shared beliefs and practices across Christianity and Islam. And we shouldn't be talking about the worst of the tradition of Islam and comparing it with the best of the tradition of Christianity.
When Jesus says, "I come not to bring peace, but a sword," is it fair to say, oh, Jesus is out to kill people?
No, because you read that in the context of the whole Bible. You read that in the context of the Christian tradition. That's how you need to understand passages in the Quran, is in the context of the whole Quran and in the context of the whole Islamic tradition.

User Image
KingdomCome (42 friends, send message) wrote: <1m ago

MAObama believes in COLLECTIVE SALVATION which is against the bible and deemed EVIL by the Pope.
==============================
Is Obama Catholic?

Thomas Jefferson didn't believe any of the miracles in the bible. Struck them out in ink.

Isn't it nice to be in a country where there is freedom to believe such deviant thoughts... ?

---------------------------------------------

Wasn't Thomas Jefferson a slave owner who treated black people like one would treat cattle?
__________

I certainly hope not, considering he had a long-term relationship and fathered a child with a slave.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When his father-in-law, John Wayles (1715-1773) died, Thomas Jefferson, through his wife, inherited the estate and the debts that came with it. To settle the debts, Jefferson sold dozens of slaves. In letters to his brother and an overseer, Jefferson reveals both his recognition of the property value of slaves and a human concern and respect for the unity of a slave family.....

User Image
KingdomCome (42 friends, send message) wrote: 3m ago
I have a free will to do as I please......I choose to be obedient to God.....Getting sexually excited is just as much a choice as who that excitement is directed at....
=========================

So what you are saying, Kingdom, is that sexual attraction has nothing to do with instinct. And that someone without the knowledge of God would, as follows, be confused about how to procreate.

Really?

==================================

What I am saying is that I have control over my body and my urges......

Not surprising that you find that so difficult to believe....

It is one of my many gifts from God.....
_________

90 percent of Americans lust. The other 10 percent are liars.

----------------------------------------

100% of people like you manufacture information and statistics to make themselves seem far more knowledgeable and intelligent than they really are....

User Image
Rob77a (14 friends, send message) wrote: 6m ago



"...Obama's actions/words directly imply that he is a Christian who respects Islam, Judiasm, and the spectrum of Americans in this country..."

The only truth on this topic.

User Image
Ariis (47 friends, send message) wrote: 6m ago
GlenShell (0 friends, send message) wrote: 2m ago
What is the prerequisite to being a christian? Simple! Demonstrating you walk with the Lord Jesus Christ. Now does President Obama demonstrate this? Each of us can answer that easily for ourselves, we sure as hell don't need some professor to answer that nor should he tell us what Rev. Graham should give as an answer, but then if you don't give the answer the professor believes you fail, I'm glad I'm not his student.

======================
And we don't need Graham telling us either

User Image
redishblue (78 friends, send message) wrote: 7m ago
KingdomCome (42 friends, send message) wrote: 14m ago
redishblue (78 friends, send message) wrote: 2m ago
I have a free will to do as I please......I choose to be obedient to God.....Getting sexually excited is just as much a choice as who that excitement is directed at....
=========================

So what you are saying, Kingdom, is that sexual attraction has nothing to do with instinct. And that someone without the knowledge of God would, as follows, be confused about how to procreate.

Really?

==================================

What I am saying is that I have control over my body and my urges......

==============================
Then back to my original question that it appears now you sidestepped. Have you had sexual urges toward a person of the same sex?

I'll make it easy for you. I have not. I have only been attracted to women. Therefore, I never was faced with the 'choice' of homosexuality.

Were you?

User Image
KingdomCome (42 friends, send message) wrote: 9m ago
WayneMcK (12 friends, send message) wrote: 7m ago
KingdomCome (42 friends, send message) wrote: 15m ago
redishblue (76 friends, send message) wrote: 1m ago
KingdomCome (42 friends, send message) wrote: 17m ago
redishblue (76 friends, send message) wrote: 2m ago
Why would Graham hold that being Muslim is inherited, while being gay is a choice?

Would anyone w/ more than a third grade education buy it?

------------------------------------------

A person is born into the faith of his parents until he is able to decide for himself/herself......

Homosexuality, on the other hand, is a lifestyle choice made only when one is of age or maturity to engage in such behavior......
=======================
Graham spoke of a Muslim 'seed' passed on by the father.... who DID NOT RAISE Obama.

And here's a question... could you (yes, you personally) learn to get sexually excited by a member of your same sex?

-----------------------------------------

I have a free will to do as I please......I choose to be obedient to God.....Getting sexually excited is just as much a choice as who that excitement is directed at....

___________

If you think getting sexually excited is a choice, you obviously haven't seen Jennifer Lopez in a low-cut dress! Maybe your problem is that you need a little more "excitement" in your life. You might not be so wound up, then.

---------------------------------------------

You and I are clearly at different ends of the maturity and self-control scale......

Maybe when you grow up and become and adult you will learn to respect yourself and others for how God created you......

User Image
redishblue (78 friends, send message) wrote: 10m ago
Tbonds,

Cut the other portions of Graham's interview as well as his inflamatory post about 'renouncing Islam' and "I can't say that he hasnt..."

But to you question... to pose the joining of one institution as the renunciation of another is divisive and hostile. And yes, it applies just as readily to Christian demonations... which were historically believed that their differences were big enough to kill over.

Obama's actions/words directly imply that he is a Christian who respects Islam, Judiasm, and the spectrum of Americans in this country.

User Image
GlenShell (0 friends, send message) wrote: 10m ago
What is the prerequisite to being a christian? Simple! Demonstrating you walk with the Lord Jesus Christ. Now does President Obama demonstrate this? Each of us can answer that easily for ourselves, we sure as hell don't need some professor to answer that nor should he tell us what Rev. Graham should give as an answer, but then if you don't give the answer the professor believes you fail, I'm glad I'm not his student.

User Image
WayneMcK (12 friends, send message) wrote: 11m ago
KingdomCome (42 friends, send message) wrote: 14m ago
redishblue (78 friends, send message) wrote: 2m ago
Recommend | Report Abuse
Freedom1791 (0 friends, send message) wrote: 10m ago
MAObama believes in COLLECTIVE SALVATION which is against the bible and deemed EVIL by the Pope.
==============================
Is Obama Catholic?

Thomas Jefferson didn't believe any of the miracles in the bible. Struck them out in ink.

Isn't it nice to be in a country where there is freedom to believe such deviant thoughts... ?

---------------------------------------------

Wasn't Thomas Jefferson a slave owner who treated black people like one would treat cattle?
__________

I certainly hope not, considering he had a long-term relationship and fathered a child with a slave.

 
P Think Green
 



__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___